create_folder

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the mutating effect, parent/child placement semantics, shared-mailbox support, the include_raw option, and the return value ('trimmed new folder'). It omits error/conflict behavior and permission requirements, but for a simple create operation the disclosed behavior is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, structured with Args and Returns, and front-loads the core purpose before parameter details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description appropriately states the return value. It covers all parameters and the main behavioral choices. Missing details like error handling or response field structure would be nice but are not essential for correctly invoking this straightforward create tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It clarifies that display_name is required and non-empty, parent_folder_id accepts a folder id or well-known name, mailbox targets shared mailboxes, and include_raw controls the raw Graph payload. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new mail folder (top-level or child).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling folder operations like update_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders. The scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear in-tool usage context: parent_folder_id determines top-level vs child creation, and mailbox is for shared mailboxes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent knows when creation is the appropriate operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.